If the problem with charisma is one of specificity and not of existence (which is seems to be here), then I would ask if you feel you could quantify everything about a person's attractiveness, down the most basic, for every single person you meet. You probably could do a good job for most people in your life, but could you do everyone?

For me, I know that there's a somewhat ineffable idea behind attraction. It would be folly for me to try and iterate exactly why I like some people and dislike others. If you asked me why I pursued certain women in my life and not others, I would have trouble quantifying that as well. There's something in us that existed way before we discovered language that helps rule that attraction and interaction and we're forced to use somewhat open-ended concepts to approach defining it.

Yes and yes to what PMD and CJ are saying. To sum it up, concept words are gooey and fluid. Trying to pin down characteristics about some things that we intuitively stick words to is really, really hard, but we know what we mean enough by each other when we say them that they are useful concepts.

I would say that it is precisely their "gooey and fluid" nature that makes them so useful. They are words that are supremely capable of communicating a whole range of things based on their context. So long as people take the time to establish that context in their communication, so as to avoid confusion, they are some of the most powerful words in the English language.

I would say that it is precisely their "gooey and fluid" nature that makes them so useful. They are words that are supremely capable of communicating a whole range of things based on their context. So long as people take the time to establish that context in their communication, so as to avoid confusion, they are some of the most powerful words in the English language.

Exactly. Rhetorical force is a value of language that is ultimately more important than their propositional truth values.

It would be folly for me to try and iterate exactly why I like some people and dislike others.

That is the way I feel about some athletes. There are a couple in the AFL(Aussie Rules), that I should like as players, they play how I feel it should be played, are not dirty and the like, but because of the way their head's look, I can not like them as players. It isn't even an ugly thing, I just don't like the way their heads look.

I am the same with Kobe Bryant in the NBA, his ferret like face makes me dislike him, but it isn't the actual appearance it is what that ferret like face stands for, which goes beyond the aesthetics.

so I'm reading the Nicomachean Ethics and just got done with the translator's philosophical introduction. Pretty ******* dense, but here's some stuff the translator covered that Aristotle Himself will cover in the actual book that would be good for discussion here.

1) One of Aristotle's main points is that many of the excellences we seek are moderation between two extremes: courage is between recklessness and cowardice, etc. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomac...he_Golden_Mean. Does this make sense to you? Do you see deficiencies in this?

2) Maybe the better discussion: Aristotle defined the greatest good for humans as happiness. The word in Greek is eudaimonia, which doesn't really mean happiness in English. It's a more objective sense of happiness, sometimes called "flourishing." It's like an appreciable state of contentment and excellence in various areas of life through various excellences practiced via reason, and these excellences are often between excess and lack. Just because you're happy doesn't mean you're having eudaimonia - a glutton may be happy when eating, but not having eudaimonia, because according to the golden mean concept, you could be excessive. This means that pleasure is not the chief good, because you could be having pleasure and not having eudaimonia. Aristotle argues that pleasure is not the chief good because pleasure is not a good itself but a sign that something is good. Also, just because something is pleasurable doesn't mean that it is a good, because it could be unethical or unvirtuous. You can get pleasure from gossiping, but that's not a sign it is good because of other reasons.

I left out alot and probably explained it badly, but I think there's a pretty common philosophical question here: is pleasure the highest good? Meaning, is hedonism essentially correct?

so I'm reading the Nicomachean Ethics and just got done with the translator's philosophical introduction. Pretty ******* dense, but here's some stuff the translator covered that Aristotle Himself will cover in the actual book that would be good for discussion here.

1) One of Aristotle's main points is that many of the excellences we seek are moderation between two extremes: courage is between recklessness and cowardice, etc. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomac...he_Golden_Mean. Does this make sense to you? Do you see deficiencies in this?

How Buddhist...

Quote:

2) Maybe the better discussion: Aristotle defined the greatest good for humans as happiness. The word in Greek is eudaimonia, which doesn't really mean happiness in English. It's a more objective sense of happiness, sometimes called "flourishing." It's like an appreciable state of contentment and excellence in various areas of life through various excellences practiced via reason, and these excellences are often between excess and lack. Just because you're happy doesn't mean you're having eudaimonia - a glutton may be happy when eating, but not having eudaimonia, because according to the golden mean concept, you could be excessive. This means that pleasure is not the chief good, because you could be having pleasure and not having eudaimonia. Aristotle argues that pleasure is not the chief good because pleasure is not a good itself but a sign that something is good. Also, just because something is pleasurable doesn't mean that it is a good, because it could be unethical or unvirtuous. You can get pleasure from gossiping, but that's not a sign it is good because of other reasons.

I left out alot and probably explained it badly, but I think there's a pretty common philosophical question here: is pleasure the highest good? Meaning, is hedonism essentially correct?

It's tough to answer the question without knowing the considered scale of the good. So long as one admits that no human has enough foresight to consider all the social ramifications of their actions and, indeed, that their foresight is generally limited even far shorter of that standard for the sake of expediency, one has a problem of scale. Who and what a person considers outside of themselves when considering good will vary greatly and therefore will vary their standards for the term itself.

One could say that this is another example of that Golden Mean; that the balance lies somewhere between selfishness and altruism, but for me that is a vague answer to a pretty specific question.

"Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of Epicurus (c. 341–c. 270 BC), founded around 307 BC. Epicurus was an atomic materialist, following in the steps of Democritus. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention."

Sounds like atheism to me?

Sounds like Deism to me, Steve. Read Epicurus in the context of his own time, not as the people who revived him during the Renaissance interpreted him.

__________________
What do the vikings and marijuana have in common? Every time you put them in a bowl
they get smoked.

Okay so Im in Psych 100 and the teacher said that Red 40 (in food and drinks) can be a reason why a murderer gets off the hook for committing a crime because if he is used to have it everyday, and he craves it, he will do anything for it. So in essence, Kool-Aid can get you out of jail. Your thoughts?

Okay so Im in Psych 100 and the teacher said that Red 40 (in food and drinks) can be a reason why a murderer gets off the hook for committing a crime because if he is used to have it everyday, and he craves it, he will do anything for it. So in essence, Kool-Aid can get you out of jail. Your thoughts?

So long as we are unable to imprison concepts, the physical human is still responsible for their actions. I'm not suggesting the law shouldn't recognize mitigating circumstances, but acts of desperation or passion are still acted by the subject. It's not the most empathetic perspective, but don't any other way to maintain the system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titletown

Sounds like Deism to me, Steve. Read Epicurus in the context of his own time, not as the people who revived him during the Renaissance interpreted him.

Even St. Aquinas never really argued for stuff like divine intervention, instead invoking God as the first step in a rather Newton-esque series of events. That said, from what I remember of Epicurus is that he firstly believed that the basis of reality (his conceptual atoms, different from our actual atoms) sought no result and were themselves random and chaotic. Certainly, if he was religious, it was a very different kind of religion than that which was prevalent around him.

Okay so Im in Psych 100 and the teacher said that Red 40 (in food and drinks) can be a reason why a murderer gets off the hook for committing a crime because if he is used to have it everyday, and he craves it, he will do anything for it. So in essence, Kool-Aid can get you out of jail. Your thoughts?

Your prof is a jackass. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoidmoonduck

Certainly, if he was religious, it was a very different kind of religion than that which was prevalent around him.

Yeah, deism.

__________________
What do the vikings and marijuana have in common? Every time you put them in a bowl
they get smoked.

Okay so Im in Psych 100 and the teacher said that Red 40 (in food and drinks) can be a reason why a murderer gets off the hook for committing a crime because if he is used to have it everyday, and he craves it, he will do anything for it. So in essence, Kool-Aid can get you out of jail. Your thoughts?

That's not a good enough reason. I believe that even if determinism is true, that does not necessarily change the legal system, because the legal system is more about self-defense from wrongdoing rather than seeking a responsible cause. If a person is caused to be a habitually bloodthirsty person or if they choose to be that way, it doesn't matter - lock 'em up so they don't kill again. Maybe if determinism is true we should find ways to change those societal or biological causes, but we shouldn't sit on our hands in the meantime.

Yea, I have a real hard time believing that would ever hold up in court in any way. Then again, if you go with a jury anything could happen.

Speaking of, we were debating that whole McDonald's Hot Coffee incident in my Litigation class and I thought it would be interesting to see what y'all thought about it if it even has any application in this thread.

Basically(if you don't already know) this woman spilled a cup of coffee on herself at McDonald's and sued for her injuries. She offered to settle out of court for 20k which McD's refused(inexplicably) and was initially rewarded millions of dollars. She ended up settling privately for a different figure so I'm sure it was less than that but it was surely a substantial figure.

I guess my question is, is it ok for the court to award punitive damages of such an amount for something like this? I mean, she spilled it on herself and their claim was that the coffee was simply too hot(190F) and that they had been warned about it numerous times over a decade through customer complaints.

Sorry this is probably completely off topic but I had to get that out lol.

It would appear to be a different kind of deism, even. Deism is almost solely based around the idea of "God" instead of Epicurus' many Gods. And Epicurus absolutely recognized the contemporary value in the stories of the Gods. That would make him a pretty strange deist.